Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-10-25 16:28:05 EDT --- rpmlint lcmaps.spec is clean $ rpmlint ./lcmaps-1.4.31-5.fc15.src.rpm lcmaps.src: W: strange-permission lcmaps.spec 0600L Please change the permissions on the input files to the .src.rpm $ rpmlint./noarch/lcmaps-basic-interface-1.4.31-5.fc15.noarch.rpm \ ./noarch/lcmaps-globus-interface-1.4.31-5.fc15.noarch.rpm \ ./noarch/lcmaps-openssl-interface-1.4.31-5.fc15.noarch.rpm \ ./x86_64/lcmaps-1.4.31-5.fc15.x86_64.rpm \ ./x86_64/lcmaps-debuginfo-1.4.31-5.fc15.x86_64.rpm \ ./x86_64/lcmaps-devel-1.4.31-5.fc15.x86_64.rpm \ Full in to these types: (1) lcmaps.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblcmaps.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 Is this something you can look at, it's genrally considered bad practise, at least submit a bug upstream. (2) lcmaps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/liblcmaps_return_poolindex.so So you mention these in the .spec file that they are dlopened. It it only your application that opens them? Can they be moved out of lib to say copy httpd's /usr/lib64/httpd/modules style, e.g /usr/lib64/lcmaps/modules, this is a suggestion rather than a requirement. (3) lcmaps-basic-interface.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lcmaps/lcmaps_basic.h This is quite odd, why are these not just in the devel package? especially given that you just require it anyway. [yes] specfiles match: lcmaps.spec. [yes] source files match upstream: $ md5sum ../SOURCES/lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz ab2dcdb2679c8b8e1c7ae6570fbc3bc5 ../SOURCES/lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz ab2dcdb2679c8b8e1c7ae6570fbc3bc5 lcmaps-1.4.31.tar.gz [yes] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [no] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. You use both lcmaps and %{name} quite a bit through the package. I would drop one of them. Proberly name since it seems unlikely that this will be useful for anything else. [yes] dist tag is present. [yes] build root is correct. [?] license field matches the actual license, ASL2.0 all the code is headed well. However the LICENSE file is not the ASL2.0 I am familiar with. Do you believe with this file this still complies to the ASL2.0, what is this text. [? but probably] license is open source-compatible. [yes] license text included in package. [no] latest version is being packaged. 1.4.34 appears to be available. [yes] BuildRequires are proper. Builds okay in mock [yes] compiler flags are appropriate. [yes] %clean is present. (But not needed anymore) [yes] package builds in mock. tested F15. [not-checked-yet] package installs properly. [no] rpmlint is silent. See comments above. [not-checked-yet] final provides and requires are sane Waiting on more comments about the '-interface' packages. I don't understand the 'interface' packages. [none] %check is present and all tests pass: [yes] owns the directories it creates. [yes] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [yes] no duplicates in %files. [yes] file permissions are appropriate. [yes] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [yes] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [yes] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [?] pkgconfig files. You have requires pkgconfig, this is only needed on RHEL5. [yes] no libtool .la droppings. [none] desktop files valid and installed properly. So the main questions are , what are those 'interface' packages, can't these just all go in devel? The odd LICENSE file which is not ASL2.0. Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review